Senator Tim Kaine accepts the premise that Trump’s tariff plan reduces the deficit—but reframes it by exposing the cost. He uses a metaphor and a regressive tax analogy to show the burden is shifted onto everyday Americans. The result? A powerful negative frame: deficit reduction comes at a price.
Sen. Ron Johnson frames Trump’s megabill by starting with a clear goal—reducing the deficit—then uses contrast to show how the bill fails that goal. It’s a clean example of goal framing that relies on consistency and outcome rather than outrage.
Sen. Jeff Merkley reveals how a proposed tax bill helps billionaires while hurting families—then points out that these outcomes don’t align with past campaign promises. It’s a framing move built on contrast and consistency, encouraging the audience to quietly notice what’s changed.
The Speaker reframes a controversial spending bill as a “reconciliation package,” injects the metaphor “jet fuel,” and overwhelms criticism with a flood of benefits—creating a powerful frame built on optimism, not math.
When asked about a New York Times article on alleged drug use, Elon Musk didn’t address the report directly. Instead, he redirected attention to the publication’s past controversies—framing the question itself as unworthy of response.
After warning about self-preserving AI systems, Yoshua Bengio reframed the regulation gap with one surprising line: a sandwich has more oversight than AI. The contrast turns outrage into common sense.
U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright was asked if he still thinks climate change is overhyped—even after Colorado’s devastating wildfires. His response? A calm, data-driven pivot: “Let’s talk about wildfires.” Here’s how that framing shifted the entire conversation.
When Richard Clarke responded to staff cuts at the NSC, he didn’t challenge the numbers—he reframed the entire debate by changing the question. A powerful move in rhetorical framing.
When Harvard’s president responded to proposed federal research funding cuts, he didn’t just defend the university—he reframed the debate as a national loss and questioned the logic behind the change.
